Skip to content


State of Rajasthan Vs. Rao Baldeo Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 120 and 142 of 1970
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)355
AppellantState of Rajasthan
RespondentRao Baldeo Singh and ors.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredBoard of Revenue Rajasthan v. Baldeo Singh (supra
Excerpt:
rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 - section 23(2) - private property--determination of--jagir commissioner to apply mind and make positive determination whether property is private or not--property did not become automatically private merely because jagir commissioner failed 'o discharge his duty--character of property is not changed merely because state government did not forward any claim--held question of determination of nature & character of properties is under inquiry under section 23(2) before jagir commissioner;what is required under section 23(2) of the act is that there should be an application of mind by the jagir commissioner and a positive determination by him about the nature or character of the property concerned, whether it was the.....d.p. gpta, c.j. 1. these two special appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned single judge of this court, partly allowing the writ petition filed by rao baldeo singh and ors..2. the facts which have given rise to these special appeals may be briefly stated: rao baldeo singh is the ex-jagirdar of sattasar in district bikaner, whose jagir was resumed under the provisions of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the act) on august 15, 1954. thereafter on august 23, 1954, the collector, bikaner, within whose jurisdiction the area comprised in rao baldeo singh's jagir was situated, gave a notice to him directing him to hand over possession of his jagir and all records connected therewith to the tehsildar, bikaner. rao bildeo singh.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gpta, C.J.

1. These two special appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, partly allowing the writ petition filed by Rao Baldeo Singh and Ors..

2. The facts which have given rise to these special appeals may be briefly stated:

Rao Baldeo Singh is the Ex-Jagirdar of Sattasar in District Bikaner, whose Jagir was resumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on August 15, 1954. Thereafter on August 23, 1954, the Collector, Bikaner, within whose jurisdiction the area comprised in Rao Baldeo Singh's Jagir was situated, gave a notice to him directing him to hand over possession of his Jagir and all records connected therewith to the Tehsildar, Bikaner. Rao Bildeo Singh did not comply with the directions contained in the notice given by the Collector, Bikaner and filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed. Rao Baldeo Singh also filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed on April 15, 1955. Thereafter another notice was issued by the Collector, Bikaner, to the petitioner on May 14, 1955, directing him to hand over charge of his Jagir and its records to the Tehsildar, Bikaner and on September 27, 1955, Rao Baldeo Singh handed over charge of his Jagir to the Tehsildar. On that very day he also submitted a list of his private properties, as envisaged under section 23(1) of the Act. It is alleged that Rao Baldeo Singh owned 1591 Bighas of land in villages Sattasar and Kakrala in District Bikaner, besides other land in District Ganganigr, which were claimed to be under his 'Khud-Kasht'. ft was claimed that land bearing Khasra Nos. 20 and 22, measuring 921 Bighas and 1 Biswa and 79 Bighas and 10 Biswas respectively, situated in village Kakrala and land bearing Khasra Nos. 226 and 227, measuring 375 Bighas and 13 Biswas and 214 Bighas and 10 Biswas respectively, situated in village Sattasar and were under the personal cultivation of Rao Baldeo Singh. It was also claimed that Rao Baldeo Singh enjoyed occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid lands in accordance with the provisions of the Bikaner Tenancy Act 1945 and as the aforesaid lands were clamied to be under the personal cultivation of Rao Baldeo Singh, they were alleged to be 'Khud-Kasht' lands. The Jagir Commissioner determined the compensation payable to Rao Baldeo Singh under the provisions of the Act, treating the aforesaid lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala as 'Khud-Kasht' lands.

3. As regards the lands situated in District Sri Ganganagar. Rao Baldeo Singh submitted as application on March 18, 1957, before the Tehsildar, Anoopgarh, for correction of the entries relating to the said fields and for entering them as his 'Khud-Kasht' Khatedari lands. The application was eventually forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, who accorded sanction by his order dated November 30, 1958, and directed the Collector, Bikaner, to make necessary corrections in the Patwar papers and other revenue records so as to enter the disputed lands as 'Khud-Kasht' lands of Rao Baldeo Singh. On appeal to the Board of Revenue, by its order dated July 24, 1959, the Board held that the matter as to whether the lands were 'Khud-Kasht' lands or not should be referred to the Jagir Commissioner for decision and that the entries existing in the revenue record should not be disturbed until the Jagir Commissioner decided the matter. An order passed by the Additional Jagir Commissioner on October 5, 1959, was also set aside by the Board of Revenue by its order dated April 8, 1960. Tne Board of Revenue was of the view that the Jagir Commissioier was the competent authority for determining the nature of the property under section 23 (2) of the Act. A review application was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on JuJy 16, 1962.

4. The order passed by the Board of Revenue referring the matter to the Jagir Commissioner was challenged by Rao Baldeo Singh in this Court by means of a writ petition, being D.B. Civil writ Pelition No. 482 of 1962, which was allows! by this Court by its order dated October 7, 1963. This Court was of the view that no inquiry under Section 23(2) of the Act was necessary to be nude in the case and that the matter regarding the correction of entries should have been disposed of in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rdjasthan Land Revenue Act.The orders pissed by the Board of Revenue on July 24, 1959, Aprils. 1960 aid July 16, 1962, were set aside by this Court and the Board of Revenve was directe 1 to decide the appeal itself on merits, if sufficient material was available on the record to dispose of the matter finally or to pass such other order which it might consider fit in the circumstances of the case.

5. The aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme court by their decision dated December 14, 1967, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajner and Ors. v. Rao Billeo Singh and Ors. AIR 1968 Raj 898 allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan and set aside the order passed by this court and held that the language of section 23 of the Act was per-emptory in character and if any question arises whether any property is of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act,' the same shall have to be referred to the Jagir Commissioner who miy, after holding the prescribed inquiry, make such order thereon as he may deem fit.

6. In respect of lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala in District Bikaner, it is claimed that such lands are 'Khud-Kasht' lands. It has been pointed out that the Additional Jagir Commissioner by his order dated October 5, 1959, while deciding the question relating to lands situated fa' Ganganagar District, held that as regards other properties of the Jagirdar, as shown in the list of private properties, no objection was raised by any body and thus they were confirmed to be 'Khud-Kasht' lands of Rao Baldeo Singh.' But in the year 1962, notices were issued by the Tehsildar, Bikaner stating that the the lands in question situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala were under unlawful possession of Rao Baldeo Singh and his two wives, Rani Gulab Kanwar and Rani Inder Kanwar and they were directed to pay penal rent and to vacate their unauthorised occupation of the lands. Notices to the same effect were issued by the Tehsildar, Bikaner, to Rao Baldeo Singh and his wives on June 7,1965, and June 24,1965 directing them to vacate their unlawful occupation immediately, or show cause why they should not be forcibly dispossessed of the land in question, under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

7. On receipt of the aforesaid notices, Rao Baldeo Singh and his two wives filed a writ petition in this court on April 19, 1966, praying that the aforesaid notices issued by the Tehsildar, Bikaner, may be quashed and respondents be restrained from evicting them from the lands in quesion. This writ petition came up for decision before Tyagi J. as he then was. As regards Sattasar land, it was held by the learned Single Judge that in the absence of any proper determination of the question regarding the nature of the land situated in village Sattasar, it was not open to the Jagirdar to say that the said land situated in village Sattasar belonged to him. The Jagirdar should get the matter decided from the Jagir Commissioner under Section 23 (2) of the Act. In respect of lands situated in village Kakrala, it was observed by Tyagi J. that as the said land was included in the list of his private properties submitted by the Jagirdar in the year 1955, at the the time when he handed over charge of his Jagir to the Tehsildar, Bikaner and as since then no objection was raised from any quarter in respect of the land s'tuated in village Kakrala that they did not belong to the Jagirdar, the said land became the private property of the Jagirdar on January 1959, when the proceedings relating to the resumption of the Jagir lands of Rao Baldeo Singh were completed by the Jagir Commissioner and a final award regarding payment of compensation was pronounced. It was held that thereafter the Jagirdar and and his wives could not be dispossessed from the land situated in village Kakrala. The learned Single Judge therefore quashed the notice Ex 13 issued by the Tehsildar, Bikaner, in respect of the land situated in village Kakrala by his order dated January 13, 1970; while in regard to the land situated in village Sattasar, it was directed that the writ petitioners would continue to remain in possesion and would not be dispossessed until the Jagir Commissioner disposed of the enquiry under Section 23 (2) of the Act.

8. The aforesaid order Passed by the learned Single Judge on January 13, 1970, partly allowing the writ Petition filed by the petitioners has been challenged in these two special appeals. While in the appeal preferred bv the State of Rajasthan, it is urged that the Jagirdar and his wives were not entitled to retain possession of the lands in dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court in relation to the lands situated in Sri Ganganagar District was equally applicable to the lands situated in villageg Kakrala and Sattasar in District Bikaner, as the matters related to the very list of private properties filed by the Jagirdar at the time of resumption of his Jagir. Thus, according to the contention of the learned counsel for the State the learned Sinsle Judge could not have held that the lands situated in village Kakrala were the 'Khud-Kasht' lands of the writ petitioners however the writ petitioners m their appeal have urged that the lands situated in village Sattasar should have been treated as personal properties of the petitioners in the same manner as the Kakrala lands. It was argued hv the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Additional JaS Commissioner dated October 15 1955, became final and conclusive so far as the Sattasar and Kakrala lands were concerned, as it was specifically mentioned therein that no objection in respect of the 'other properties' included in the list of personal properties submitted by the Jagirdar except the fands situated in Ganganagar District was raised at any time .It was urged that after the completion of the proceedings for resumption of the Jagir lands of petitioner on January 29, 1955, the Jagir Commissioner became functus officio and the lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala became the private properties of the Jagirdar and the Tehsildar Bikaner could not dispossess the writ petitioners from such lands. Learned counse for the petrtioners further urged that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the Jagir Cornrnisioner had ordered a suo motu inquiry on February 1958 m respect of the lands situated in village Sattasar.

9. An argument similar to the one which has been advanced before us, was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in Mahipat Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1962 RLW 201. In that case also it was urged on behalf of Mahipat Singh, who was the legal heir of the deceased Jagirdar. that no objection was presented on Behalf of the 'State Government before the Jagir Commissioner when the matter regarding determination of compensation was decided and that the dispute before the Board of Revenue was confined merely to the respective claims of persons who 'represented that they were entitled to the properties of the Ex-Jagirdar. It was urged that the Jagir Commissioner could not determine the question afresh under section 23 (2) of the Act and the State Government could not raise any objection about the nature of the properties, after it had failed to raise any such objection as the the t|me pf determination of the compensation. This argument was rejected by the Division Bench in Mahipat Sitigh's case with the following observations:-

As the findings show, it has to remembered that a list was of course submitted by the late Jagirdar in which he included the disputed properties as has private properties. The Board has pointed out that no decision had been arrived at on the point by the Jagir Commissioner himself. It is not disputed and it cannot be disputed that even in the absence of any reference made by the Officer who took charge of the properties there was a statutory obligation on the part of the Jagir Commissioner to come to a decision whether the properties so included in the list were, or were not, the private properties of the Jagirdar, or were properties which were liable to be resumed, in which case compensation woiijd be payable to the heirs of the Jagirdar. In this case it appears that the claimants to the Jagirs are fighting between themselves with regard to these properties or the compensation payble therefor, and against the decision of the Jagir Commissioner given under Section 23 (2) of the Act or purporting to have been given under that section the petitioner himself, as also the other claimants, preferred appeals to the Board of Revenue. As such the Board of Revenue, as an appellate Court, was in seizin of the matter; and one of the incidental questions which arose for decision in the case was whether or not these properties were the private properties of the Jagirdar. It is true that at that earlier stage the Government had not put forward any claim to these properties as resumable properties; but that would make no difference so far as the statutory obligation of the Jagir Commissioner was concerned. The Board, therefore, being of the opiniori that the question of the properties had-not been properly decided, reminded the case to the Jagir Commissioner fbr an appropriate decision on the point in the presence of parties concerned, It cannot be, therefore, argued that the Board was without jurisdiction. The nature of the properties had to be determined because that alone would lead to a determination of the claim for the compensation as between the contesting claimants, if any; and the petitioner himself had invoked the jurisdiction of the Board as an appellate authority under the Jagir Act. When the matter went back to the Jagir Commissioner, the Officer himself thought that notice should go to the Revenue Secretary to the Government as also to the Deputy Collector, Jagir. This was quite in consonance with the spirit of the order which had been passed by the Board of keyenue; yet when the matter came to be heard, by the Jagir Commissioner he appears to have shut out the objection, raised by the State Government on the groimd that the objections had not been raised at an earlier stage. As we have pointed out the question of the nature of the properties had to be decided by the Jagir Commissioner under the statute, even if no reference to that effect had been made by the person in charge of the properties of the Jagirdar; and that not having been done, the State Government could not be shut out merely because the Jagir Commissioner had failed to perform his duty under the Statute...

10. It was thus held that it was the statutory obligation of the Jagir Commissioner under Section 23(2) of the Act to come to a decision whether the properties so included in the list filed by the Jagirdar were or were not private properties of the Jagiidar or liable to be resumed. Even if the State Government did not raise any objection about the nature of the propeities at an earlier stage that would make no difference so far as the statutory obligation of the Jagir Commissioner was concerned, if the question ol the nature of the property had not been determined earlier by the Jagir Commissioner on the ground that the objections had not been raised en behalf of the State at the earlier stage, yet the Jagir Commissioner is under a statutory duty to determine the question of the nature of the properties, even if no reference to that effect has been made by the person taking charge of the properties of the Jagir on behalf of the State.

11. The learned Single Judge has placed considerable reliance on the fact that when the Additional Jagir Commissioner decided the matter lelating to compensation by his order dated October 5, 1959. in respect of the lands situated in the three villages of Sri Ganganagar District, he incidentally stated as under :

As regards other properties of the Jagirdar as shown in the list on the file there is no objection from any quarter and the same has been verified by the Tehsildar vide letter of the Collector, Bikaner, to the Jagir Commissioner numbering 353 dated 9-5-57.

It may be observed that the aforesaid statement contained in the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner did not amount to a determination of the question as to whether the lands situated in villages Saltasar and Kakarla were the private properties of the Jagirdar or were resumable properties. Merely because no objections were raised from any quarter. the Jagir Commissioner was not absolved of his statutory duty to decide the question about the nature of the properties. In fact, the master before the Additional Jagir Commissioner, while he passed the order dated October .5, 1959, related to the Ganganagar lands and mere casual observation made by him that, no objection was raised from any quarter regarding 'other properties of the Jagirdar' cannot be termed to be a conscious decision on the part of the Additional Jagir Commissioner regarding the nature of the lands situated in villages Kakrala and Sattasar. Sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act imposed a statutory obligation upon the Jagir Commissioner to determine the question as to whether the properties included in the list submitted by the Jagirdar were his private properties or not and as the Additional Jagir Commissioner failed to make a specific decision of the question relating to the lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala, while passing his order dated October 5, 1959, we are unaole to agree with the learned Single Judge that there was any final decisioa arrived at by the Jagir Commissioner in respect of the lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala. It may be observed that without a clear determination by the Jagir Commissioner, the lands in dispute could not be considered to be private properties of the Jagirdar merely because the State Government failed to raise any objection.

12. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition No. 482 of 1962 relating to the lands situated in Ganganagar District while holding that there was no necessity for the Jagir Commissioner to record his finding regarding the properties included in the list of private properties submitted by the Jagirdar in respect of which no objection was raised and that such properties should be considered to be personal properties of the Jagirdar, after the proceedings for resumption of the Jagir were concluded. We may observe in this connection that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench has been set aside by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Revenue Board, Rajasthan v. Baldev Singh (supra) and it has been held that the provisions of section 23(2) of the Act are per-emptory in nature and it is for the Jagir Commissioner to decide the question as to whether any property included by the Jagirdar in the list of private properties was either private property or was resumable property. As such, mere failure on the part of the State Government to raise an objection on an earlier stage could not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the lands situated in village Kakrala were private properties without there being any express determination of the question by the Jagir Commissioner under section 2J(2) of the Act. With great respect to the learned Single Judge, we would like to observe that the reason given by the learned Single Judge for holding that the lands situated in Sattasar village could not be taken to be the private properties of the Jagirdar, unless the question was properly determined by the Jagir Commissioner under section 23(2) of the Act, was equally appij. cable to the matter relating to the lands situated in Kakrala village. In respect of the lands situated in village Sattasar, the learned Single Judge observed:

In the absence of any proper determination of the question regarding the nature of Sattasar land it is not open to the Jagirdar at this stage to say that the lands belong to him. He must first get the matter decided by the Jagir Commissioner and then he can put forward his claim to that property.

There is no reason why the same argument should not be equally apple, cable to the lands situated in Kakrala village, because in the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959, which has been considered to be the basis for holding that in the absence of any objection being raised the lands situated in village Kakrala became the private property of the Jagirdar, no reference has been made either to Sattasar lands or the lands situated in village Kakrala. As a matter of fact the decision of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959 related only to the land which was situated in the three villages of Ganganagar District which were claimed by the Jagirdar as his private property and there is no specific reference in that order either to the lands situated in village Kakrala or village Sattasar. Mere absence of objections is not decisive, but what is required under section 23(2) of the Act is that there should be an application of mind by the Jagir Commissioner and a positive determination by him about the nature or character of the property concerned, whether it was the private property of the Jagirdar or it was subject matter of resumption. The order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959, does not contain any conscious decision on the part of the Jagir Commissioner either with regard to the lands situated in village Sattasar or in respect of the lands located in Kakrala village. As such, we are of the view that the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue Rajasthan v. Baldeo Singh (supra) in the earlier case relating to the property situated in Ganganagar District must also govern the decision of the present case relating to the property of the same Jagirdar, Rao Baldeo Singh situated in Bikaner District and in the absence of a specific decision on the part of the Jagir Commissioner it cannot be held that the lands situated in village Kakraia or Sattasar village stood on any different footing from the lands of the same Jagirdar situated in the three villages of Ganganagar District.

13. The argument which prevailed with the learned Single Judge was that any objection regarding the nature of the lands should have been raised before the final award was passed by the Jagir Commissioner on January 12, 1959 and as no objection in respect of the lands situated in village Kakrala was raised before the completion of the proceedings for resumption of the Jagir of Rao Baldeo Singh, the said lands should be considered to be the private property of the Jagirdar and the Tehsildar could not dispossess the writ petitioners from such lands. As we have already observed above in the absence of a proper determination about the nature or character of the properties in question by the JagirCommissioner, it cannot be held that merely because a final award was given, any objection in respect of the nature of the said properties could not be raised. We would like to observe in this connection that if the Jagir Commissioner failed to perform the statutory duty imposed upon him by Section 23(2) of the Act and the question about the nature of the properties not having been determined so far, the same is yet to be determined. Merely because the Jagir Commissioner failed to discharge his duty under the statute and decide about the character of the properties, the lands situated in village Kakrala could not automatically become personal properties of the Jagirdar only because such lands were included in the list of private properties filed by the Jagirdar at the time of handing overcharge of the Jagir to the State. In case of properties which are resumable, it would make no difference that the objection about the nature of such properties was not raised before or at the time of passing of the final award by the Jagir Commissioner. The mere fact that the State Government did not put forward any claim to'those properties as resumable properties at any earlier stage, could not have the effect of changing the character of such properties unless there was a proper and legal determination of the question about nature of such properties by the Jagir Commissioner under Section 23 (2) of the Act.

14. We may also consider the matter from another aspect. The order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959, which is the anchor-sheet of the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners was set aside by the Board of Revenue by its order dated April 8, 1960. A Division Bench of this Court quashed the order of the Board of Revenue dated April 8, 1960; but the order passed by the Division Bench was set aside by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The result was that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated April 8, 1960 was restored by which he order of the Additionl Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959 was set aside. Now after the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, reliance could not be placed on the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959, which no longer holds the field. It would be a strange argument indeed that although the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959, could not be relied upon with reference to the properties situated in the District Ganganagar, with which the said order expressly dealt, yet it would still hold good in respect of the lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakarala with which the said order was not concerned and which did not find any mention in it. It may be pointed out that an argument has been made out in respect of lands situated in Sattasar and Kakrala villages on the ground that those lands were 'the other properties' referred to in the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959. When the said order was set aside by the Board of Revenue, it lost its efficacy for all purposes and could not be deemed to have remained valid in respect of any property much less in respect of lands situated in the District of Bikaner. It will not be out of place to mention that even the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959, was passed after the final award was passed on January 20, 1959. As a matter of fact, the alleged completion of the proceedings for resumption of the Jagir have no relevance in the present case, in as much as without a proper determination of the nature and character of the lands in dispute, as to whether they were private properties of the Jagirdar or were resumable lands, the question as to whether the compensation was to be paid by the State Government to the Ex-Jagirdar in respect of such lands could not also be finally decided and the said matter must be held to be still pending.

15. It has been stated before us by the learned counsel for both the parties that after the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the order of the Board of Revenue dated December 14, 1967 his been restored and now the matter is pending before the Jagir Commissioner, in accordance with the remand order passed by the Board of Revenue, for determination of the question about the nature of the properties included in the list of private properties under Section 23 (2) of the Act. The matter relating to the determination of the nature of the lands situated in village Sattasar and Kakrala is thus also pending before the Jagir Commissioner, for determination about the nature of the lands, with reference to the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act. During the pendency of such matter before the Jagir Commissioner, in these circumstances, there can be no justification for this court for holding that Kakrala lands were private properties or otherwise. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The question about the determination of nature and character of the lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala is under inquiry before the Jagir Commissioner under Section 23 (2) of the Act and it is only after a decision is given in respect there of by the Jagir Commissioner that the rights of the petitioner would be finally determined in relation to the said lands.

16. In the result, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is allowed, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated January 13, 1970, is set aside in so far as it relates to the lands situated in Kakrala village and it is maintained in respect of Sattasar lands. We direct that the Jagir Commissioner should decide the matter relating to the nature and character of the lands situated in villages Sattasar and Kakrala, which were included in the list of the private properties submitted by Rao Baldeo Singh in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 (2) of the Act. The Jagir Commissioner should decide the matter within a period of three months, as the same is pending before him for quite a long time. The appeal filed by Rao Baldeo Singh and Ors. is dismissed.

17. The parties are left to bear their own costs of the proceedings in this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //